A few weeks ago, Gov. Chris Christie announced his willingness to encourage sports betting in New Jersey in spite of a 20-year-old federal law that limits wagering on sports to four states, none of which is ours. His message to those who might not like it: I’ll see you in court.

He may get his chance. Monmouth Park operator Dennis Drazin told The Bergen Record that he hopes to offer betting on professional and college sports at his racetrack this fall. That’s likely to bring a legal challenge from the sports leagues, which believe legal betting would threaten their games’ integrity, and the Justice Department, whose job it would be to defend the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA).

The public, like Christie, seems to be on Drazin’s side. In a statewide referendum last fall, voters gave 2-to-1 support to allowing betting on pro games, as well as on college contests that are played outside the state and don’t involve New Jersey teams. Christie later signed legislation allowing sports wagering at the Atlantic City casinos and the four horse tracks, and his administration has published regulations that would apply if the federal ban is removed, including a stipulation that half the revenue from licensing fees be used for programs to combat compulsive gambling.

Christie and the Legislature, led by Sen. Ray Lesniak (D-Elizabeth), believe sports betting would help revive Atlantic City and the racetracks and provide badly needed tax dollars for the state treasury by offering what would be, at least for a while, the only major legal venue for the action outside Nevada.

Lesniak and others point out that vast sums already are bet on sports through bookmakers, many of whom are mob-sponsored, and offshore online sports betting operations, and that the leagues tacitly endorse the action by letting their broadcasters freely discuss odds and point spreads. “Let’s get that economy out from underground,” Christie has said.

They think they have a strong case. Three years ago, Lesniak and two pro-gambling trade associations filed a federal lawsuit contending that PASPA violates the U.S. Constitution by giving an unfair advantage to selected states at the expense of others. U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown dismissed the suit on technical grounds, but signaled that a state-sponsored suit that attacked PASPA as an infringement of New Jersey’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment would be seriously considered.

Some independent experts agree. Professor I. Nelson Rose of Whittier Law School, for example, notes that gambling traditionally has been an issue for states to decide.
“I cannot think of any other act of Congress that prevented a state from changing its public policy on gambling,” he wrote. “It is difficult to know where in the U.S. Constitution Congress got this power to begin with.”

Except for Monmouth Park’s Drazin, however, New Jersey casino and racetrack officials have been reluctant to take the first step. Tony Rodio, president of Tropicana Entertainment, has said he’d want “a lot more clarity” on the legal status of sports betting before his casino invested much money in a sports book. Meadowlands Racetrack’s Jeff Gural said he’s not ready to enlist in Drazin’s effort, either.

Drazin has a plan, however, that could pay off even if a court issues an injunction and a prolonged legal battle ensues. He said Monmouth Park could attract sports bettors by offering free-play, no-money wagering on sporting events, with opportunities for patrons to win prizes such as hotel rooms or show tickets in Atlantic City. That way, the costs of setting up a sports book at the track wouldn’t be wasted if court rulings go against the operators.

SPEAKING IMPEACHMENT?

The I-word isn’t one that’s tossed around casually by serious observers of New Jersey politics.

That’s why it was a bit startling to see The Star-Ledger drop it into an editorial strongly criticizing Gov. Chris Christie for suggesting that New Jersey might decide not to expand its Medicaid program under President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, even though expansion would provide medical coverage for an estimated 234,000 residents who aren’t covered now, with the feds fully covering the added cost for the first three years and 90 percent thereafter.

“The governor may never thank Obama,” the paper wrote, “but he is not crazy enough to leave billions of dollars on the table. And if he is, it’s time to read the state constitution and brush up on the grounds for impeachment.”

The Star-Ledger is rightly appalled at the idea that Christie might join Texas’ Rick Perry, South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Florida’s Rick Scott and other GOP governors on the far right in refusing to expand Medicaid in their states because of partisan hatred for Obama and “Obamacare.” It would be a colossal disservice to New Jersey. But to suggest that he might be impeached for it is obvious hyperbole.

The state constitution allows a governor to be impeached for “misdemeanor” by a majority of the Assembly and removed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There’s virtually no judicial definition of “misdemeanor,” but even if every Democrat in the Senate were willing to say it would cover a refusal to accept federal aid to improve New Jerseyans’ health and life expectancy and reduce the state’s $700 million annual payment to hospitals for charity care, they’d still be three votes short. At the same time, they’d alienate a chunk of the voting public and give Christie the martyr card to play during the run-up to his campaign for a second term.

The Star-Ledger made a forceful case for New Jersey to enlist in Medicaid expansion, however. And, whether its punch line was a rhetorical flourish or not, it did get our attention.